Not the Headlines! Extra--Press Responsibility

The Listening Tube presents Not the Headlines Extra. I'm Bob Woodley from the Listening Tube. While the military operations of the United States and Iran have come to a standstill, there's still a lot of activity. Behind the scenes, talks are being held, armaments are being replenished, and while it seems like the American military is taking a well-earned break, they probably aren't. In addition to what's going on in the Iranian theater, there's also a lot going on when it comes to studying and understanding what's happened and how best to react to it. Certainly the downing of an American fighter jet is among the concerns the U.S. Air Force has, as well as the rescue mission to extract the remaining airmen from inside Iranian territory. A rescue mission that was made more complicated by the leak to the press that there was an airman inside Iranian territory that needed to be rescued. President Trump made it clear in his address about the incident that the leak put many American lives at risk and called the leaker a sick person, adding that the journalists who publish the information will go to jail if they don't reveal their source. As you might imagine, the response from the press was swift, calling the actions of the president an attempt to stifle the freedom of the press. I'll just point out right here that while we hear a lot about the freedom of the press, we rarely hear about the responsibility of the press. Well, that can't be right. While I don't exonerate the person who provided the leak, identified by Bloomberglaw.com as a woman named Courtney Williams of North Carolina, she was probably badgered by a reporter who found her to be either vulnerable or willing. It takes two to tango, and we have yet to find out who the reporter was. That's demonstrative of the media protecting their own, even though the source was exposed. Not just exposed, but arrested. The Justice Department indicted her on charges of disclosing classified material. There's probably not much the government can do to the reporter now that the identity of the source has been revealed. The reporter can claim they were just doing their job. There's no inquiry as to whether or not the information was gathered legally or if the source was coerced in any way. In this case, though, it sounds like the woman was more than willing to give up the classified information. But that doesn't mean the reporter is entirely innocent either. With great power comes great responsibility. Today's media seems to have forgotten that. Maybe there were other news outlets that had the information and chose to keep it embargoed, but from what I can gather, it was one source talking to one reporter and no others. That should make it easy to narrow it down to who it was. But the focus of the press isn't who betrayed the security of a downed airman inside enemy territory, drawing attention to an entire country of the fact that an American airman was loose in the country and there's a huge bounty on his head. The focus of the press is on the president's so-called threat to independent journalism and the First Amendment. Responsibility be damned. It's the job of the press to do the muckraking and reveal all to the world. That's just how it is today, thanks to the speed of the internet and the need for instant gratification. It's a brand new world, and we need to get used to it. Plus, the president has no right to stifle free speech, even if the government doesn't like it. And that's true. He doesn't have the right to limit the freedom of the press either. What's often overlooked is the fact that the president also has First Amendment rights, and he's free to say what he wants. If he calls out the press for soliciting classified information and then publishing that information, which in turn puts lives at risk, he has the right to do that. In fact, he has just as much right to criticize the press as the press has to reveal that there's an American on the loose inside Iran. Although his response was predicated by the betrayal. This is really nothing new. Another president, one hundred twenty years ago this week, on April 14, 1906, expressed his displeasure with the press. Theodore Roosevelt, whose term as president is but one facet of the incredible and adventurous life he lived, also criticized the press for its muckraking. The Chronicle of the twentieth century tells the story. President Roosevelt took to task today those crusading journalists who persist in what he called too much muckraking. Speaking at the dedication of a new house office building in Washington, the president noted that in Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, there was a man who never looked up to the finer things, even when promised a celestial crown, but who constantly applied his muckrake to the filth of the floor. Roosevelt conceded that there is filth on the floor, and it must be scraped up from time to time. He also said politicians who betray the public trust must be exposed, and corrupt businessmen must be prosecuted. These men with their muck rakes, the president said, are often indispensable, but only if they know when to stop raking muck. Had there been electronic amplification of sound at that time, President Teddy Roosevelt's comments could have resulted in what is today referred to as a mic drop. 120 years later, we're still trying to find the right balance between what's allowed and what's right. That's fine if you think women should be allowed to walk around topless. But when we're talking about the security of the country and the safety of our citizens and warriors, it's still best to err on the side of caution. I can't believe that after 120 years, the press hasn't figured that out yet. I'm Bob Woodley from the Listening Tube. Get a lot more content from the listening tube with Bob Woodley Podcast.